Smash 4 3DS/Wii U Ruleset revision needed?

[Phycin]

The current rule set seems to be really rushed and just appears to be an upgraded set from for glory (it really just is)

So I was wondering if what if the rule set was changed to Melee style (4 stock 8 min.)

Pros
- Matches would be more interesting as they wouldn't be as short
- Allows a more fair match to be played**

Cons
- Matches would be more drawn out and longer
- Could lead to potential stalling

**I put this here because Smash 4's current 2 stock system makes it so that if you lose a stock you are forced to play more defensively

What do you guys think?
Would the melee rule set be viable for smash 4 and it's play style?
Would the brawl rules be more of a balanced choice?
What about the Smash 64 idea of 5 stock 10 minute?

 

[Phycin]

So I screwed up with the poll so let us ignore that shall we?

 

[Raijinken]

I don't think we need to emulate Melee, as the games are vastly different in pace.

While I personally support at least a widespread test-run of For Glory rules (aside from Doubles, where it'd need revision), it would require a general attitude change of the Smash community to be more accepting of time-outs as a valid strategy.

I'd also support higher stock and time settings, but TOs (and players and spectators) would similarly need to adjust the perception of how events should be run, as the time required would grow tremendously (depending on tournament size). It'd have to trend more towards Dota-like time allotments (setting aside multiple days/weekends for events rather than an evening and done), which the Smash community (and fighting community in general) probably wouldn't be very accepting of.

I'm not a fan of the 2-stock rule for exactly the reason you stated, but frankly, there is nothing uncompetitive about playing a game defensively if that's how the mechanics work. It's just an attitude thing on the larger scale, though. There's just a community/social stigma against conservative playstyles in the Western world (Japan doesn't seem to care if it leads to better results, for instance).

There's also a lot of room to revisit other ruleset functions, like the Suicide Clause, tiebreakers, and stage selection, as well as (for tournaments that still use them) custom move implementation.

In other words, we really need people to come up with a ruleset for Smash4 that is developed in isolation from past Smash games, and maybe from the Fighting genre as a whole. The only issue is, what TO or community has a loyal enough playerbase to run a drastically different ruleset?

 

[Teh Sandwich]

How is the match less interesting just because it's shorter? 2stock matches are mad hype. Losing a stock doesn't "force" you to play more defensive. That's ridiculous speculation.

In a 3 stock match, if I gain the lead in the first set of stocks, I play sooo defensive. I main link as well. So you can just imagine the frustration I can cause. I play defensive threw the second stock in order to maintain my lead, instead of trying to finish the game. I see a lot more camping/slow play styles in 3 stock matches over 2 stock matches.
In a 2stock match, you need to be able to notice your opponents weaknesses, and adapt quickly. Also the "SDs are way more dramatic in a 2 stock match" argument is just ridiculous.
Tournaments seem to run so much better with the 2 stock format as well.

Edit: anything over 3 stocks, in the current meta, would just be ridiculous in tournament.

 

[Raijinken]

How is the match less interesting just because it's shorter? 2stock matches are mad hype. Losing a stock doesn't "force" you to play more defensive. That's ridiculous speculation.

In a 3 stock match, if I gain the lead in the first set of stocks, I play sooo defensive. I main link as well. So you can just imagine the frustration I can cause. I play defensive threw the second stock in order to maintain my lead, instead of trying to finish the game. I see a lot more camping/slow play styles in 3 stock matches over 2 stock matches.
In a 2stock match, you need to be able to notice your opponents weaknesses, and adapt quickly. Also the "SDs are way more dramatic in a 2 stock match" argument is just ridiculous.
Tournaments seem to run so much better with the 2 stock format as well.

Edit: anything over 3 stocks, in the current meta, would just be ridiculous in tournament.

A lot of, if not all of, the theory about playstyle as relates to stocks is so strongly influenced by any individual's region, tastes, and personality that it's hard to factor in either way.

You may consider it prudent and safe to play defensively when you have a lead. Especially for your character, that's a very good way to increase your odds of winning. In other situations, it may be wiser to take your lead and run with it. The last thing you want to do against a Lucario is dawdle too long and let him build aura and rage. Several characters are essentially incapable of pushing a lead, others are similarly bad at capitalizing defensively. A lot depends on your analysis of your opponent's skill, too. If I know my opponent (or their character) has the skill and resources to stage a comeback if I make a mistake, I'll fall back on defense. If I know my opponent will recklessly charge me down, hit my shield, and give me free followups, I'll play defense. But if I know my opponent crumples under pressure and has negative morale against an aggressive onslaught (and more importantly, may slip up on their own defense when I take the aggressive), then I'll go for that strategy (character-willing) and capitalize on their weakness.

Most of that boils down to general game mechanics and individual styles, though. On the scale of aggro to defense I'm a moderate defensive who has always had Captain Falcon on my character list, so that sort of variable style makes more sense to me than it may to more strongly defensive or aggressive players.

 

[MajorMajora]

...What's with this hatred of playing defensive? It might not be too interesting to watch but it's not exactly a reason to ban something. Besides, having a variety of playstyles can make things less boring.

Anyways, I'm in favor of longer matches, as it is more fair, and I think any worrying about stalling is fearmongering. It might increase a bit, but not enough to be a significant nuisance.

 

[Phycin]

...What's with this hatred of playing defensive? It might not be too interesting to watch but it's not exactly a reason to ban something. Besides, having a variety of playstyles can make things less boring.

Anyways, I'm in favor of longer matches, as it is more fair, and I think any worrying about stalling is fearmongering. It might increase a bit, but not enough to be a significant nuisance.

I have no hatred for defensive play. I feel I may have made that be my main argument. I just feel that since smash 4 has a faster pacing than brawl, which had a 3s 8m ruleset, so I feel that making it 2s 6m isn't really fair to the game competitive wise.

My point is Smash 4 is faster than Brawl in pace, but slower than PM and Melee, so why does it have a shorter rule set than brawl?

 

[Phycin]

How is the match less interesting just because it's shorter? 2stock matches are mad hype. Losing a stock doesn't "force" you to play more defensive. That's ridiculous speculation.

In a 3 stock match, if I gain the lead in the first set of stocks, I play sooo defensive. I main link as well. So you can just imagine the frustration I can cause. I play defensive threw the second stock in order to maintain my lead, instead of trying to finish the game. I see a lot more camping/slow play styles in 3 stock matches over 2 stock matches.
In a 2stock match, you need to be able to notice your opponents weaknesses, and adapt quickly. Also the "SDs are way more dramatic in a 2 stock match" argument is just ridiculous.
Tournaments seem to run so much better with the 2 stock format as well.

Edit: anything over 3 stocks, in the current meta, would just be ridiculous in tournament.

I agree with that and after some testing I do feel that Smash 4 as a tournament scene would draw out way to long. So maybe as a 3s 8m would work to fit Smash 4's pacing?

 

[MajorMajora]

3 stocks 8 minutes is how i'm leaning, but... Well, I guess my main worry is whether or not stocks take loner with the new ledge mechanics. Recoveries are more common, so even if the game is faster, are the stocks faster? They might be, I don't know. Still in favor of 3 stocks as it is, though.

 

[Raijinken]

3 stocks 8 minutes is how i'm leaning, but... Well, I guess my main worry is whether or not stocks take loner with the new ledge mechanics. Recoveries are more common, so even if the game is faster, are the stocks faster? They might be, I don't know. Still in favor of 3 stocks as it is, though.

Much of that accounts from players being, as a whole, unaccustomed to near-stage offstage play. Trumping is a skill few have mastered, and properly following up those trumps is even less-practiced. There are also tight (but present) vulnerability windows on grab, regrab, etc. But when compared to the rest of the series where an edgehog is very close to completely safe and completely reliable, trumping takes a lot more skill to perform reliably. I think the end result is that offstage play gets more interesting and more skill-intensive, but the visible result is that people have a harder time closing stocks short of direct-to-blastline kills.

Also I liked your old avatar more =/